Musing on Embedded Leverage

Last week was decision architecture. This week, “Embedded leverage.”

When trying to ascertain what it is that this initiative can offer to anyone, there are a few phrases that we used to kind of get people to understand what it is they may need/what it is we might be able to do for them:

• Executive architect
• Strategic program catalyst
• Internal transformation lead with executive access
• Special projects operator reporting high in the org

None of these are particularly glamorous. And in many cases, these don’t fit nicely into a job posting or even a marking deck when someone in middle management comes up with “tactics for our eventual success.“ But, in conversations with decision-makers and other persons who circle around or through organizational inflection points, these are a few of the terms which linger.

These terms invite a very specific ask: that of a person or group having embedded leverage. But there is some kind of mandate to which they will be doing something for some amount of time for some specific goal. Or, they will be just dating on the ambiguity of a thing in order to give shape to it so that the executive stakeholder can better articulate the strategic imperative. This is a liminal space it’s a tension-filled space. But, it’s an unshaped space.

We’re trying to get around the idea of architecting better decisions, this is an effect what we are asking for an organizational lead to consider. If, they would like to have this service to be a part of their transformation story, what kind of embedded leverage would be allowed or empowered? And then what are the limits to this leverage? Are there better decisions to be made? Are their milestones that revealed themselves in the organization that might not be so conductive to someone who has 1 foot in and 1 foot out? Is the organization actually at an inflection point, or is the person who is making the request at the inflection point and they are misconstruing their inflection point for that of the organization?

Towards this last point, this actually speaks to one of our engagements where we did a bit of executive coaching, and it was uncovered that the chief executive was actually trying to position change, but he was probably the one Most in need of doing the change. In his case, he ended up retiring, but not before elevating a type of clarity to the rest of the organization to the mission envision that they had subscribed to. We operated with 1 foot in the organization coaching to the executive, and serving as a sounding board to the executive team. And with the other foot outside of the organization, looking at the artifacts and the ripples from the things that the internal team said were the “business of the organization.“ We came in with one mindset as to the type of change they needed, but it ended up being revealed that the decisions to be made needed to happen with people who were not in the room (yet).

Embedded leverage is not a “forever“ posture. It’s something that exists for a time, and with some kind of cap to the resources that it pulls from others and the impact that it needs to serve. However, when leveraged well, this posture creates an impetus for a better type of mandate for the organization. Generally speaking one in which things are clearer, more performant, and likely more palatable to the desired outcomes.